One way to make it more airtight is to define variables for each string, and then have the proposal execute them.
On further consideration, I think the whitespace/bleach solution has a flaw. The rule says that whitespace “generally” doesn’t matter. This situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam <[email protected]> wrote: > I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might defuse > it and then there's no fun lol > > I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of > "paradox" (and scam, quite likely). > > Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit > it. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities > > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to > > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish" > > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is > > > too ambiguous to work. > > > > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects > > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267 > > > > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in > > July this year: > > > > > Clearly marked comments are considered > > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless > > > otherwise stated by the proposal. > > > > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach > > argument is a clever alternative). > > > > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at > > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments, > > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can > > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And > > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered > > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed. > > > > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could > > imagine at least four outcomes: > > > > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked", > > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough > > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in > > both halves that both halves are effective. > > > > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to > > ineffective nonsense. > > > > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed, > > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing. > > > > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in > > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535) > > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment. > > > > > > > > > -- D. Margaux
